Once
again, the U.S. government is contradicting itself with regard to democracy
in Iraq. By denying the people a chance to vote, with UN monitors, the U.S.
is pushing the idea of selected caucuses with voting to be done in limited
ways; by doing this, the U.S. is showing that it is being hypocritical when
it says it wants “democracy” for Iraq. What it actually wants is a fractured
country, with Shi’a, Sunni and Kurds all having small sections of the
country and a legislature that will be powerless to agree on anything
because of these three divisions. If we are to be the leader in "democracy,"
then we have to be consistent and responsible in our behavior; otherwise, we
will continue to be seen as a hollow imitation of democracy in the third and
even in other first world.

Ayatollah Sistani is
correct—if you’re going to have a democracy, then have a democracy where
every person has a vote and the majority rules. Of course, there will be
rules to protect minorities, but there is no way you can have a true
democracy if minorities rule the country (as America seems want to do). Of
course, the Americans plan to keep over 100,000 troops in Iraq. This is fine
with the puppet “governing council of Talabani, Chalabi and friends, because
this will protect their lives and their power—but no true democratic
government in Iraq will allow the Americans to stay once the Americans
relinquish governing power. So, will America allow a true democracy to rule
the country, or will it be another set of puppets or groups unable to do
anything while Paul Bremer or some other American appointee actually runs
the show? If the present American plan goes through, this latter option with
an American running the show will be put in place and this will bode poorly
for "democracy."

America as an example of
democracy and freedom in the world is all but gone under this absurdly
contradictory regime of GW Bush. The fiasco in Iraq is just another example;
it has already been seen as a lie in the recent Afghan “elections” (where
very few of the Afghans actually voted in the new “government” of Ahmad
Karzai and his group). Ironically, in order to calm matters, word has
reached me from some Afghan sources that Richard Armitage, of the U.S. State
Department, is becoming more cozy with the former Taliban Foreign Minister
and other officials he’s been meeting with of late. Is this how democracy
comes in and reforms a country? This approach, of trying to appease the
warlords, Karzai, the Pashtuns and Uzbeks will only be a band-aid in
Afghanistan because the divisions wrought from the tribal fighting of
centuries will not vanish, even with thousands of foreign troops on the
ground.

But in Iraq, the Shi'a,
because of their firm, loyal and organized religious bonds, will not be
broken--as they have not been broken for thirteen centuries. The American
plan of divide and conquer will not work in Iraq because the Baathist's back
has been broken, the Kurds cannot control the whole of Iraq and the Shi'a
will not sell out to America. They know they have aces in their hands and
that the American military has not,and cannot control the whole of Iraq, or
even large sections of it. Ayatollah Sistani, Imam Hakim and Imam Sadr have
all made this clear--and they are united as one in this Shi'a declaration
for self-sufficiency, self-governance and a UN monitored open democratic
election. Of course, the Shi'a favor this because they know they are the
majority in Iraq. However, it does not mean they will suddenly turn on their
Iraqi brethren if they win the election. Unfortunately, some American spin-meisters
have been pushing this story in the same absurd way they tried to deceive
people with the hoax of a relationship between the secularist Saddam Hussein
and the fanatic Wahabi Osama Bin Laden and this recent invention that Saddam
had a document that warned Iraqis not to work with Arab and Muslims fighters
that might come in to oppose the American occupation forces.

Ayatollah Sistani has made
clear, and he has the largest following of any Iraqi, that he will not abide
by a fractured Iraq or a fake “election” of caucuses running the country.

He has made clear, as have
so many Iraqis that they want a real and open election of a new and Iraqi
chosen government—no more American puppet groups, or American appointees
running the country. Unless this happens, you can be prepared for a massive
resistance from the Shi’a—and this will make the disorganized resistance of
present day Iraqi Baathists, groups of families who want revenge for the
American killing of their relatives, parents or children, outside Muslims
and Arabs wanting to fight the occupying American forces, seem like child’s
play.

Remember this about the
Shi’a of Iraq—they cannot be bought and they have come to the end of their
suffering in quiet. Unless the Americans move toward a true democratic
election, with UN Monitors and with American hands off—we shall pay a
heavier price in Iraq than any of the American government “experts” will be
able to even imagine.

Sam Hamod is an expert on Middle Eastern and Islamic Affairs. He
is a former professor at Princeton, advisor to the US State Department and
served as Director of the National Islamic Center in Washington, DC and as
editor of Third World News (DC). He may be reached at
shamod@cox.net